Is Science Bullsh*t? John Oliver Explains The Corruption Behind Scientific Studies

I agree with your points in this post.

This post is DIFFERENT from the other one.

The OP was about WHERE THE FLAWS ARE.

The OP was NOT ABOUT trashing the whole train because a bear got in the caboose.

It's not that difficult, folks.

Y'all can send the pack of straw dogs back to their kennels.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: BO XIAN

I would have to argue the point here. So here goes.

Pop musicians often write bad music for big money, and the record industry keeps hiring them to do it. Is music dead?

Some clergy persons molest children, and their bishops and higher ups have done little about it. Is Christianity satanism?

Some people in Essex have a reputation for having more STDs than a porn star turned two bit hooker, and their neighbours are ambivalent about it. Is everyone in Essex a giant whore?

Some scientists prefer to make money, than make world changing discoveries with science. Those whose job it is to keep the quality level of information provided by the scientific community to the rest of the world, seem to be ok with that. Is science BS?

The answer to all of the above questions, is a resounding, and utterly comprehensive NO. WHY? Because quality music is still made, because there are still Christians out there who cherish the word and spirit of Christ, and because not every single person in Essex has to have a visit from a HAZMAT team from Porton Down, just to dispose of their prophylactics. In the same way, quality science, done for the right reasons, and in the right way is being done DESPITE the fact that those who administrate its various appendages have all the ethical backbone of a jelly sandwich.

Understand this. Science is a technique of mind. It is not an organisation, it is not a person, or a place, or an item. How poorly it is used, understood, or delivered does not take away from the fact that when used as it ought to be, great things can come about, and that will remain the case no matter what ridiculous schemes and tales are told by those with a qualification in it.

Put another way, as long as gravity continues to act upon me, and every other thing in this universe, science will continue to be a useful tool of the mind, and those who use it descisively and ethically will still have major contributions to make to the future of this species.

God and Logic...God and Logic...Where have I heard that before...

a reply to: BO XIAN

The issue here, is that the article which forms the basis of the OP is delivered in such a manner, as to have a casual reader (not me, just eighty percent of people who will bother reading more than a paragraph of it) believing that every bit of science is BS, because we cannot trust grant managers and money shufflers at universities and study groups to behave in an ethical fashion.

That is not fair, and given the initiator of this, Jon Oliver, knows ALL about how most people are about reading or listening to the whole story, leave alone doing their own research, the headline of this article could not be more inappropriate, and nor could the manner in which it has been delivered.

Bogus, sham, obfuscatory nonsense. No matter how true it may be that studies are carried out with little to no effective oversight or acceptable sample sizes, it will never be appropriate to put a title on a piece about science, as deliberately inflammatory, and "I told you so" inducingly STUPID as this one.

a reply to: TrueBrit

At least the debate is happening here a little about the commercialization of knowledge. It's a tough ethical balancing act.

Science is knowledge so in a sense patents and such are withholding information. I don't have an opinion as to what is the correct way to conduct ethical business practices across science but I do think the debates need to happen soon. The politicians make up side issues to distract people all the time. We have some serious dilemmas concerning ethics and scientific knowledge to adress.

I think a serious issue is in research studies. Especially the medical industry where people are depended in the information being given to them for treatment.

Stuff like this.

www.slate.com...

Fortunately science also is skeptical of itself so some real boring curmudgeons go over the work eventually simply for the joy of pointing out some one else's mistakes. Thank atoms for these people.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: BO XIAN
I think one of the worst practices forced on the community is peer review. This is the boys club that is the scientific communities hammer that they hit non scientists with. ie. if it's a scientific paper it MUST be peer reviewed or the scientific community WILL NOT accept any findings.
You can even say "oh, but you must be a scientist to understand the terminology". No you don't.
I couldn't even guess at what processes and technologies have been lost because 1. they were not scientists that discovered them and 2 in consequence the scientific community would not even look at the evidence and sometimes actively go about trying to bury it.

As I understand it, "peer review" is relatively recent. It's not really a part of the Scientific Method at all: replicability is. Although the idea sounds okay at first. After all, if you submit to peer review and your fellow scientists agree that your ideas are worthy, that tends to cut out the riff-raff. But abused, it ensures only that "proper" papers are accepted, so if you don't meet the criteria, you don't get published. A good example is "Climate Change." Since the "scientist" Al Gore insists the "science is settled," no one can really publish contrary information, especially with the government holding the purse strings for climate research. I have actually seen grant applications that say (paraphrased), "we fund climate research into how global warming is affecting the ecosystem." In other words, if your research shows and proves Al Gore's "scientific" CO2 chart is backwards, i.e.: CO2 levels rose 1,000 years after a warming trend and is an EFFECT of warming rather than a CAUSE of warming, then your research won't be funded.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Ohhhhh . . . for argument's sake . . . I think I'll disagree.

1. GIVEN the outrageously entrenched religious DOGMA in the public mind--conscious and unconscious . . . I personally think it takes SOME hyperbole to break through all the mindless sleep-walking, media lobotomized DENIAL.

2. So, authors must write to the lowest common denominator? I disagree.

3. Certainly for myself, I don't post such articles with the least bit of a fantasy that the mind-numbed Religion of Science acolytes will learn a shred of anything. Their minds are made up, calcified, fossilized, signed, sealed and terminally delivered. No way is their religious dogma about science going to get so much as even a good scratch. They are OMNISCIENT--just listen to them, read them.

4. There are a minority of people who are already awake or mostly awake about such issues. I don't post for them. That would be singing to the choir.

5. There are another minority of folks who still--somewhat miraculously--manage to have a shred of fair-mindedness about life and life issues. They may lean more this way or that way but they still have some capacity to examine, analyze and interpret information more or less fair-mindedly. I write for those folks.

6. The ignorant and deluded will continue to be ignorant and deluded and even more lobotomized by the main stream media regardless of whether hyperbole is used, or not . . . or how much it is used. They will bear their own consequences for their air-headedness.

a reply to: schuyler

Oh, Dear me, Schuyler,

We HAVE to quit meeting this way and agreeing so much.

People will start to talk!

I don't think your primary reference group could TOLERATE THAT! I'd hate to see you ousted!

Nevertheless, I agree with your post wholesale. Yet again.

Another miracle. Clearly Jesus is coming soon.

I agree even though I disagree about climate change. Grants should be blind as a rule. You get a tax break in private business but no say and punished if found tampering. When your fabricating drug trials for profit things are much worse in my opinion than a debate about climate change. I think the debate should be had I've climate but honestly and open. I trust my knowledge of how the earth works to the polution levels and habitat destruction. If I am wrong so what. I learned something. Thats science.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Do you even have a point?

I mean, hyperbole aside? Yes, people, all kinds of people from atheists to monks have the capacity for intelligent and discerning thought, and at the same time, both those groups have individuals who express all the talent for independent thought and logical discernment that one would expect from a door frame.

Such is the wonder of being a part of the human species.

However, what the article implies about science as an overarching method of understanding the physical universe, is tosh. Yes, pseudoscience is a problem, and you would know, since as Chadwickus pointed out, you love the stuff, and post it all the time.

But the fact is, that without science we would not be having this debate in this format. The piece of glass, silicon, and metal that I have in front of me would never have been shaped, formed and compiled without it, leave alone be connected to a world wide network via a wireless interface, if it had not have been for ages of scientific advancement and technological innovation.

I might not even be here to have the discussion, if effective treatment for asthma had not staved off the worst of my coughing fits when I was a youngster, any one of which might have killed me. Science has real effects in the real world, and while there are honest, positive discoveries there, making lives better and moving things onward, science will continue to have significant worth to the species as a concept and a toolkit for surviving the trials of an uncertain future.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I see.

Welllllll, you've had more than ample opportunity to understand my perspective and seem very determined not to.

Sigen.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: schuyler

Oh, Dear me, Schuyler,

We HAVE to quit meeting this way and agreeing so much.

People will start to talk!

I don't think your primary reference group could TOLERATE THAT! I'd hate to see you ousted!

Nevertheless, I agree with your post wholesale. Yet again.

Another miracle. Clearly Jesus is coming soon.

Is there an ATS rule against sh!tposting? Because this seems to me the definition of sh!tposting. Low effort "rofl i agree lol" posts add nothing to the discussion and merely clutter up threads.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I have an outstanding grasp of the English language and the comprehension of it.

If you believe I am having difficulty understanding your point, perhaps you should consider communicating it properly?

a reply to: Greggers


It often takes ten to fifteen research articles to find the uncut truth about a matter.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Greggers


It often takes ten to fifteen research articles to find the uncut truth about a matter.

INDEED.

And NOT 15 from the same organization, point of view, grant, dept, office, etc. And where possible, to include some different scientific disciplines looking at the same issue(s). That latter one is usually very difficult to impossible but it really adds robustness to the interpretation and results.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Oh, for crying out loud!

I am out. The hypocrisy involved with posting this thread, and then that one is literally nauseating, and I am one of those fellows who can watch an autopsy while eating lunch, so it's got to be pretty bad.

See you some place else around here, no doubt. Really appreciate the heads up there!

a reply to: schuyler

Climate change was one of two examples that Oliver used to make his point about how many just choose which study they want to believe is fact and ignore the rest, the other was vaccines causing autism.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Greggers


It often takes ten to fifteen research articles to find the uncut truth about a matter.

But only one blog post from collective-evolution.com, apparently.

The hypocrisy of OP being so credulous with unscientific, sensationalist sources but apparently oh so skeptical of mainstream science is astounding.

a reply to: BO XIAN

SO we should be trusting John Oliver on science now? He is qualified how?

Ah I watched it .... yeah he's not saying Science is BS. Politics of science is, yep, its why I work in industry not academia